Big Brother is Monitoring: Texting/Paging in the Workplace
Mom always said, “think before you speak,” but nowadays that advice extends to “think before you type” – especially when it’s on your employer’s keyboard.
In the case of the City of Ontario, CA v. Quon, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of employers to monitor employee communications, in the public and private sector. Mr. Quon had asserted that he had been subjected to an unreasonable "search" under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution because the city of Ontario, his employer, had read the messages on his pager.
This is a California case but was watched in all jurisdictions because it could be very influential. However, as True/Slant points out, this opinion may be limited in its applicability to other employees, since Quon works for the government and the law differs somewhat for public employees.
The electronic monitoring policy of the police department, for whom Quon worked, was not very precise or completely distinctive. We join many other bloggers who have commented in asserting that common sense – and now the law – dictates that employers should eliminate ambiguities in their policies. This, however, may be easier said than done, considering the emerging concepts in this new field – including the lack of technical proficiency from the Courts. (The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported that our esteemed Supreme Court judges are not exactly “tech-savvy,” and needed some explanations regarding pagers, cell phones, etc.)
When it comes down it, why would an employee take a chance to text on an employer’s device? Perhaps because it’s convenient, and who’s really going to carry two electronic devices, one for professional and one for private use? An employer’s device is probably better technology than something one would purchase for oneself. But, if the messages are really meant to be private, is it worth taking the risk?
.jpg)
